The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Women should not play a ministerial role that consists of teaching men

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,647 times Debate No: 15381
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)




First off I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate.

Secondly, I'll let my opponent begin with his/her arguments.

I look forward to the debate round.

Pro's stance is that Women should not, in essence, be pastors. Con will argue that women should.

The debate will be based on the Bible. Thus whoever proves that the Bible agrees with their point wins.

I would ask that the voters put aside all personal bias on the issue except for the top two radio buttons, which are purely opinion. The vote should be based on what the debaters said, not what you put in their mouths.

Rules will be like policy debate.

Con must present his/her contentions in round 1.


And thanks to you sir!

Now to begin this debate, I would like to point our that my opponent did not specify in the topic or previous post, which bible we would discussing in this argument, and because he has allowed me to go first, I assume he is allowing me to define it. In this debate we will be disputing the text of The Pali Cannon.

I stand in the firm negation of this topic for a single reason today. The overpowering deity in The Pali Cannon said himself:

"there is no gender bias in Buddhism and nothing prevents a woman from becoming his successor." -The Dalai Lama

Here we can see that it is the will of the hierarchy himself to allow women the place in a position of upper most religious power.

For this reason I urge you all to vote strongly in the negation of the topic that Women should not play a ministerial role that consists of teaching men.
Debate Round No. 1


All I need to say is this: Of course I meant the Christian Bible.

The "Pali Cannon" is not even called the Bible. As far as I know, the only Bible called the Bible is the Christian Bible. I did not say "a Bible", I said "the Bible".

I hope that Con will now stick to the Bible that he knows I truly meant. Using a semantic on such a verge of silliness is, frankly, silly. You, as the voter, know I meant the Christian Bible.

I eagerly await a real response by my opponent rather than a semantic or trying to argue that Pali Cannon further.


Addison_Barton forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Con did not respond. He concedes my point, and therefore next time he must use the Bible.

Also, for those that want a semantic response, I'll take the liberty to define Church. Church will be defined as a Baptist, Christian church.

Now, have you ever seen a Christian church use a Buddhist Bible? No. Have you ever seen them use anything BUT the Christian Bible that this is about? No. Therefore my opponent's analysis falls apart. Since the church is defined as Christian, the Pali Cannon will not and should not be used.

Vote Pro, please.


I apologize for missing last round, I was at my cabin without Internet. So to continue, defines the word bible as: "the sacred writings of any religion" therefore the pali canon does in fact fall under the definition of "Bible". furthermore, basic rules of permit terms to be established in the first round, and because I was the only participant to specify the word "bible" in the first round, my definition is the only one existing and all rebuttals to it are thereby out of order.

At this point, my opponent has still failed to refute my first and only contention therefore it is most logical for you to vote in the Negation. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3


I agree that my opponent defined Bible first. Although I believe it was a rather silly semantic because everyone knows what I mean, I still negated it two ways. First, I said "the Bible", not just "a Bible". The dictionary definition is referring to "Bible" or "a Bible", not "the Bible". The means the main one. For example, if you say "the director" with no context to a movie, it is referring to the most popular director. Thus, "the Bible" is referring to the Christian Bible.

Secondly, my opponent did not refute my definition of Church. Since this point flows to me, that shows that the definition of Bible will be the Christian Bible. With this point alone I have proved semantically that I am referring to the Christian Bible.

Also, in round 1 I said the rules will be like policy. In policy, dropping an argument = conceding. My opponent forfeited round 2, thus all my responses fall through and those are enough to disprove his semantic. Moreover, Con did not refute my arguments in round 3 in any way shape or form. Thus those are conceded and they are enough to completely destroy my opponent's definition.

Among the things Con conceded was the fact that from now on he is to prove his point with the Christian Bible. Thus if he does not do so, he has failed his duty. Next round is the last round he has to create arguments based on the Bible. (Round 5 is off limits because creating new points when you have the last say is abusive). If Con does not do so, I would ask that you vote Pro. If he does do so, I will disprove his Bible verses.
Thank you, please vote Pro. At Con: Please use the Christian Bible rather than trying to argue with the pali canon any further. Using the pali canon now = ignoring all of my points.


I would like to thank my opponent for continuing debate.

To begin, I would like to address an inappropriate point of protocol used by my opponent. My opponent tried to defend the ambiguity of his topic with the remark; "everyone knows what I mean". To simply refute this statement I would like to say that I did not "know what you mean" thus deeming this statment false. But to further my rebuttal, I would like to point out the conceded bias expressed by opponent with this statement. According to religioustolerance, only 33% of the world population was Christian as of 2000. My opponent was obviously making the statement "everyone knows what I mean" under the bias of his own personal religious views and by doing this, he has disregarded 66% of the religious views of the people of the world. My opponent clearly composed this whole topic with little consideration to the majority of cultures in the world, and when he himself requested voters to put their religious bias aside, my opponent based his whole argument on a very self centered view of religion.

Next, I did not refute your definition of church simply because it was not used in the topic OR the first round, and because I defined the parameters of this debate under the book of the pali canon, my opponents definition of church is null and void.

I refuse to discuss the Christian religion with my opponent today simply because he established this debate on a blind, one-sided view of religion, and expected me as well as viewers of this debate to disregard 66% of the world. I take the con side in this debate to refute my opponents case with two simple points:

1: I defined the parameters in the first round, and my opponent did not

2: My opponents arguments as well as his topic were based on a conceded and bias view of the largely universal term: Religion

For these two irrefutable reasons, I have clearly won this debate and urge all viewers to vote Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent's basic argument was that because 66 (not 66) % of the world is not Christian, assuming the Christian Bible is disregarding those religions and acting as if everyone is Christian.

I have an easy response to this. The Budhists don't call the Pali Canon "the Bible". They call it the Pali Canon. The mormons don't call the book of Mormon "the Bible", they call it the Book of Mormon. The Muslims don't call the Koran "the Bible", they call it the Koran.

The Christian Bible has no other name. It is just called "the Bible". What else am I to refer to it as? Thus by saying "the Bible" it's clear that all should know I am speaking of the Christian Bible because that is the only name for it.

I did not "know what you mean"

I am sorry to have to say this, but this statement means one of two things. Either Con is arguing that he's dumb, or he's lying. Note I am not calling my opponent dumb. He is capable, I am sure. But if he truly did not know what I meant by "the Bible", I am shocked. This sounds more likely to be a lie simply to add emphasis. It's as if I had a debate about adding higher character limits on and I purposefully used extra space and wasted characters so that I would reach the 8,000 limit and say "You see? I can't even type in 8k characters! Just the reason why!"

I believe Con is merely pretending he did not know it was the Christian Bible. He more likely saw that word and decided to run a nasty semantic. I did not make this debate to do semantics, I made it to debate whether the Christian Bible advocates women teaching men in Church. Unfortunately, if you will not vote my opponent down for a rather silly semantic, then I am willing to stoop down to that level and "semantic him back".

I have one more response to this claim. If Con truly didn't know what I meant, he should have checked my profile to see my religion. If he truly didn't know and wanted clarification, that's what he would have done. But instead, he defined it as something else so that he could win the debate. If he was still not clear even after looking at my religion, he could have asked what I meant. Defining it as the Pali Canon is obviously a tactic rather than a misunderstanding. If this is the case, Con flat out lied to you and me.

Lastly, you are the voter. I made the prediction that you knew what I meant. Do you know what I mean? Did you assume it was the Christian Bible? If so I win on this point.

Just tie in what I said about different religions calling their scriptures different names rather than "the Bible". Even if you have a different religion, it's likely you knew I meant the Christian Bible since that's the only name for it.

Next, I did not refute your definition of church simply because it was not used in the topic OR the first round, and because I defined the parameters of this debate under the book of the pali canon, my opponents definition of church is null and void.

My opponent has a misconception of what conceding means. He conceded EVERYTHING I said about the definition of Church. Including how I tied it in to the fact that that disproves him. By never addressing it, he conceded that since the Church is defined as Christian and Christians don't use the Pali Canon, we must speak about the Christian Bible. You can't just drop a point because it doesn't apply. You have to say it doesn't apply. Since Con didn't say it doesn't apply when he had the chance to, it's conceded and he can not brush it aside now. You as the voter are voting on what we have said, not on an assumed thought. You can't assume that he dropped it since it "doesn't apply". You can only vote on what he said and what I said.

But if you're not even satisfied with that, I'll refute Con even though he stated this too late in the debate. This debate is clearly talking about the Church. I will define ministerial as "Of, relating to, or characteristic of a minister of religion" (The free dictionary) That translates the resolution to "Women should not teach men in Church".

How does this tie in? Well, he said because this round is not about a church my definition does not matter. It actually does because this round IS about the Church.

Remember, he can't even respond to this point since he conceded it. Con shouldn't have even brought it up last round since it was a done deal that it was conceded. It doesn't matter WHY he conceded it. It matters that he DID.

I refuse to discuss the Christian religion with my opponent today simply because he established this debate on a blind, one-sided view of religion, and expected me as well as viewers of this debate to disregard 66% of the world.

No, I simply wanted to debate whether the Christian Bible teaches this. I wasn't trying to debate whether all around the world in any religion a woman should teach a man in church because the Bible says so or doesn't say so. Rather, whether the Bible teaches this or not. I as the instigator am allowed to choose whatever I want. Con refuses to debate on my grounds so he should a. not have accepted this debate in the first place b. lose because of ignoring what I've said.
My opponents arguments as well as his topic were based on a conceded and bias view of the largely universal term: Religion
1. Ahem? When did I define religion as Christian? 2. If my opponent is going to say that trying to make this a Christian debate is defining religion incorrectly, then I say the same for him. He wrongly defined the Bible as "Pali Canon", which only applies to one religion. And to go further, he abused the term even more than "I did". According to (, Buddhism is only 6% of the world. So Con defined Religion as 6% of religion, and I defined it as 33% of religion. Clearly I win on this.
Those two responses cover both sides. If you truly believe Con that I wrongly defined Religion (even though I never did), then notice he did a worse job of it. But if you believe me that I never tried to define religion only as Christianity, then disregard this statement.
Each of my responses is enough to take out my opponent's stance. But let's do one more which sweeps him off his feet without any of this other argumentation. Among the many things Con did not address and therefore conceded:
Among the things Con conceded...Using the pali canon now = ignoring all of my points. (REFER TO ROUND 3 MY POST)
He conceded that he should lose if he does not bring up Bible verses. In effect, Con is saying you should vote Pro!
I would urge you to vote Pro because:
1. Con used a ridiculous semantic (and I believe you know this)
2. He refuses to debate on what I have set the rules to be
3. He has conceded many of my points, and he forfeited one round. Because he forfeited that round his definition falls apart.
On the whole issue of defining the Bible: did you assume it was the Christian Bible when you read my first post? I believe you did. If so, you should vote Pro. Let's say you didn't assume it was the Christian Bible. My definition of Church and Con's concession of it clearly defines the Bible to be meant as the Christian Bible.
At this point in the round, Con can not say anything to redeem himself. He has dropped so many crucial points and agrees that he should lose. No matter what he says next, he loses because of the three reasons I have set out and because he agrees he should lose.
Again, please set aside personal bias on the issue when voting. (Only consider whether you assumed "the Bible" to mean the Christian scriptures.)
Lastly, I would encourage you to read this post again after reading Con's last post. It will show you what he has failed to address.
Thank you Con for accepting the debate, although it turned out to be unfavorable because of your definition of "the Bible". Thank you especially voters for reading this lengthy debate.


To summarize this debate, I will quickly go over the rounds that have transpired thus far"

Allow me to remind you that this whole debate has been under the parameters established in the Topic itself AND the first round of debate. Because the topic never specified what religion we were to discussed, that was to be defined in round one of this debate as required by protocol. The specification I provided in round 1 was that we would be discussing the Pali Canon which is in fact a form of the bible, being a document of sacred writings. My opponent provided no such specifications in the first round therefore his entire argument was based off of terms that simply weren't there. His justification for this gaping hole in his case was that "everyone knows what I mean".
After making this assumption, I pointed two things out:

1: I did not know. I have a very wholeistic outlook on the world, and when I see a topic such as religion, I simply refuse to assume that everyone shares the same views as me. So to make this topic more specific, I simply narrowed the point of discussion down by defining the topic to a specific religion in the first round witch my opponent failed to accomplish.
2: My opponent has based his entire argument on the assumption that we would look on to his profile and use his information to conclude that his topic was based on his views as a single individual. I would not have included my 66% stat, had my opponent specified the religion of focus in round one as I did. My 66% stat was one to simply refute the assumption that everyone knows what he meant. You must consider as voters, that in a world of massive diversity and culture, no two people are alike. In this beautiful melt pot of beliefs, we must never assume that our neighbor has the same opinions as us. We must be careful with our statements and think beyond the parameters of the environment in which we were raised. We must consider our brothers and sisters, and pay them the tribute of considering the possibility that their beliefs differ from our own, because it is this beautiful diversity that defines us as human.

I choose to define the topic under Buddhism for the very reason my opponent brought up last round. only 6% of the world believes it. I choose Buddhism for this debate to open your eyes to a minority of the world.

At this point in the debate, I do not care who you vote as winner. If you believe the affirmative won this debate, then so be it. I am simply asking all of you to consider the views of others when making a general statement. The minority is too often overlooked in this world, and I challenge every one of you to embrace the diversity that composes the many cultures of the human race. Do not assume that your views are the same as that of everybody else, because in this magnificent world we have much to learn from each other, and the only way to achieve this, is by acknowledging the differing opinions of the human race. It is unfair of my opponent to base his entire argument off the assumption that everyone will consider his words with a Christian outlook. I request that my opponent as well as voters to eliminate one-sided bias from statements such as these. To assume that your audience will abide to the same parameters of your own beliefs is a bias that I encourage you all to suppress on a day to day basis.

Whoever wins this debate by vote is unimportant to me at this point. So long as you all heed my words and consider the diversity of society before making any kind of statement, I have won with myself, and that is enough. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Trust me. Several people know about you and your Pali Canon now :)
Posted by Addison_Barton 5 years ago
Indeed, I did not know. Haha my friends know me as being the annoying "politically correct" person and although I had suspicions that this debate was to be based on Christianity, both the topic itself as well as the first round never actually specified, so I just didn't know. I then carried on with my job by defining those ambiguous terms under Buddhism. But I just hope you will base your arguments less on assumption in the future to avoid conflicts such as these. Good debate though! Haha i'll never forget this round!
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
So you're going to claim that you truly were not sure what I meant by "the Bible"?
Posted by Addison_Barton 5 years ago
Zeal, I would like you to know that I completely respect your opinions and religious views, and I admire your aspirations of discussing such matters. I just want you to realize that when you post a topic and make an argument, you cannot expect your opponent to make assumptions that match your specific views. It is important that you be specific in debates to respect the potential views of your opponent. I do not ask for a victory against you, I simply ask that you keep other views in mind when composing debates such as these.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
He didn't even respond to my arguments...
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Stupid semantics... Addison, stop using dirty tactics. That was a stupid debate. Sorry but it really was.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Awww this debate was ruined by an immature prank.
I really would like to take this debate.

Just defend from a "Christian" biblical perspective as that is the only thing that governs Christian ministers (as the other religions are broadly defined as clergy and not ministers) and you will win.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Actually no, I don't. He's agnostic. It's not like "his Bible" is the Pali Canon. Therefore the default Bible he would think of is the Christian Bible. He knew I was referring to that. And when I set the rule, I wasn't trying to set a debatable rule. I just want the debate based on the Christian Bible. He had to ruin my debate by coming along and changing the meaning of what I said.
Posted by Amethist17 5 years ago
and since he defined it i belive you have to allow him to debate his way
Posted by Amethist17 5 years ago
the bible"doesn't necessarily mean the Christian bible it doesn't matter what you thought would be common knowledge was u shouldve clarified in ur first speech not on your profile
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I give the Argument vote because of the semantics; the implied meaning of this debate is understood. Especially since the Pro says "The Bible" as in referring to the Judeo Christian religious doctrine. I give the conduct to pro for the forfeit, and the source vote as Pro actually offers analysis on his evidence. Honestly I wish I could split the arguments point; con's semantics of using the Pali Cannon while extra-topical, was very clever. and I think deserved at least on point.